Fear of ADA lawsuit forces business to lock its doors

[mark handler]

Fear of ADA lawsuit forces business to lock its doors

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/107230/

John Perez is afraid.

It is why he’s locking the door to his business these days.

His fear isn’t some meth crazed thug that might try to rob him.

That’s penny ante stuff.

He’s worried about lawyers using the law to loot the pockets of small businessmen like him.

Ever since Carmichael-based lawyer Scott Johnson slapped civil rights lawsuits against at least 21 Manteca business seeking punitive damages for allegedly being out of compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act access rules he’s been locking the front door to his South Main Street cabinet shop, Perez & Sons. He’s posted a sign that tells potential clients to call a specific number for an appointment. And while he doesn’t get a lot of drop-in clientele he can’t risk the chance.

A good number of the targets of Johnson’s 3,000 lawsuits throughout Northern California over the years have been forced out of business from Lake Tahoe to the Bay Area to Sacramento with punitive damages approaching six figures.

At least one of the 21 Manteca businesses served with court filing in the San Diego District federal court — Johnson avoids the Sacramento federal district as judges there have reportedly developed a low tolerance for his lawsuits — is facing such a possibility. Johnson drove over 60 miles to get a hair cut at The Hair Company on West Yosemite Avenue where none of their handicapped customers have ever complained about ADA accommodations. And instead of leaving a tip he had owner Janice Ward served with papers indicating he intends to sue her for $68,000 for various violations. And the bottom line as in all of Johnson’s lawsuits is he doesn’t care if ADA improvements are made but failure to do so after paying damages can subject the business owner of a landlord to future lawsuits.

Some of the claims made against businesses include Century 21 Furniture’s failure to move fast enough to move a dinette chair pulled out from a table by a customer who was trying it out that was left in a manner to impede wheelchair access in an aisle.

“I’ve talked to a lot of business people and they’re very afraid,” Perez said.

• • •

Perez Cabinets sponsoring free workshop Friday

Perez decided to lock his doors until such time he could figure out what he needs to do to comply with the law to avoid being a target of attorneys trolling for legal paydays. His cabinet business is roughly 50 years old. His building is even older.

Perez, after listening to other business owners express fear of lawsuits that could wipe them out financially, decided to do something.

He’s secured the services of Dawn Anderson, an architect and inspector that is an expert in the area of construction and accessibility requirement regulations.

He’s arranged for Anderson to addresses concerned business people and landlords this Friday, June 6, from 1 to 4 p.m. at The Emory, 1028 W. Yosemite Ave.

And while Perez said that he and others appreciate the hour-long workshop staged by the city, the ADA expert the city had simply read printed documents and didn’t take questions. This time around there will be a presentation and an opportunity to ask questions.

Perez said Anderson is also trying to bring with her a lawyer that has extensive expertise in fighting the type of lawsuits Manteca businesses are up against.

The free workshop on Friday will cover:

• how to reduce risk and liability posed by aggressive litigators.

• ADA laws.

• a review of basic claims made under ADA rules and protections provided by California statutes.

• duties of businesses and property owners.

• 10 ways to reduce risk and liability.

• the need to hire an attorney and how to do so.

• • •

Manteca council may press for federal action

The Manteca City Council when they meet tonight is considering sending letters to federal representatives in support of House of Representatives Bill 994 known as ‘The ACCESS” or ADA Compliance for Consumer Entry to Stores and Services Act. The bill authored by Congressman Ken Calvert of Southern California and co-sponsored by Congressman Jeff Denham and 12 others has languished in committee for over a year.

Johnson did not give businesses a chance to comply first with the ADA laws before suing them. Such a practice is allowed under federal law.

The letter the council is considering notes for many of California’s small businesses the threat of a lawsuit alone can mean reduced hours, layoffs, limited pay increases for employees or shuttering of a business

The letter details how thousands of such lawsuits are filed in California each year. Based on California Chamber of Commerce statistics, over 40 percent of such ADA lawsuits nationwide are filed in the Golden State.

The proposed law would end the practice of “abusive lawsuits in which unscrupulous attorneys sue businesses seeking quick settlements, not improved access for the disabled.”

The bill would not make businesses immune from lawsuits. Instead it would give business owners and landlords 60 days to provide the aggrieved person with a description outlining the improvements that they will make to address the violation. Then they would have 120 days to remove or fix the violation. If landlords or business owners fail to meet the terms, only then will a lawsuit go forward.

The council meets at 7 p.m. at the Civic Center, 1001 W. Center St.

 

[Msradell]

Nice to see that some businesses are becoming proactive in regards to becoming accessible! This is actually a good argument for lawsuits because these businesses are not going to become accessible to prevent becoming sued. Maybe not the best way but after 20+ years something needs to be done to put a fire under their butts to become accessible and this appears to be working.

 

[ICE]

Nice to see that some businesses are becoming proactive in regards to becoming accessible!

This is a story about a business that became completely inaccessible...to everyone.

I wonder what accessibility improvements have been made at the 3000 businesses that have been sued by this lawyer.

 

[Min&Max]

Due to the "sue them" and " I'm entitled" attitude, I find myself becoming somewhat jaded to the plight of those with ADA issues.

 

[ICE]

The number of serial ADA litigants is so small as to not count at all.

This is a man worth remembering when you think about the disabled.

http://www.wimp.com/inspirationalfarmer/

 

[conarb]

The number of serial ADA litigants is so small as to not count at all.

The other side of that coin is the number of truly disabled is too small to justify the trillions of dollars being spent extorting monies from private businesses and building new facilities for government agencies. Nobody to my knowledge has ever done a cost benefit analysis on this.

 

[MtnArch]

Once the state/federal legislators finally change the laws to force ALL monies to be put toward fixing the non-accessible features and give the lawyers a mere pittance, the amount of lawsuits will drop like a rock.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Do you really believe one lawyer would take from another

"......But if you dig into what’s wrong with America, you’ll find a lawyer at the bottom of every dung heap.That label on coffee that tells us the contents are “hot”?

A lawyer gave us that.

That twelve page rental car agreement?

Lawyers.

Sexual reassignment surgery in the military on the taxpayers’ dime?

More lawyers.

If it weren’t for lawyers you’d never have heard of Rev. Al Sharpton.

Bill Clinton, lawyer; Hillary Clinton, lawyer; Barack Obama, lawyer; John Edwards, lawyer.

And those are just the famous ones.

Right now in your hometown there are likely dozens of them overbilling clients, making and breaking promises, conspiring with the opposing counsel to the keep the billing going until the money is gone.

I’m thinking of one guy right now, locally where I live—a “conservative” mind you—who cheated one woman out of mid six figures when she would have been better off representing herself.

He’s the type of guy that a used car lot wouldn’t hire.

After all, there are standards in most other professions.

But not with lawyers.

Lawyers look for problems, lawyers make problems worse, and in only the most heinous of cases does a lawyer get reprimanded.

So let’s just say that I’m hoping a legal precedent was started here with Judge Murphy.

Because while judges are lawyers themselves, they have to clear a docket after all.

They have to produce something.

So judges are free to pass over the hypocrisy of a legal system that rewards lawyers for producing nothing.

And if you think that sounds a lot like Washington, you’re right.

That’s why we have too many lawyers in DC, and that’s why they produce so little.

Kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario with the chicken billing the egg by the hour.

And before you accuse me of lawyer hate, let me remind you that it was William Shakespeare who penned the line: “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.''

I don’t want lawyers to die. Too many lawsuits would result......"

John Ransom

 

[mark handler]

There are too many lawyers in Washington and state Capitols because, we the people, keep putting them there.

 

[conarb]

On the first day of law school they asked us what kind of law we intended to practice, most of us older guys said business law, the young guys were almost unanimous in saying environmental law because that's where the money was going to be, there was one exception, he said he wanted to practice women's civil rights law since that's where the big money was going to be, he went on to bankrupt several businesses including Lucky Stores, Albertsons bought the remains and recently restored the Lucky name. He made a fortune on that one but came out of retirement to pursue his dream, destroying Walmart, he took that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, the court saying it was a state court issue, his firm is now bringing his civil rights issues through the state court systems, state by state. He went on to advise lawyers on disability rights law and has recently been appointed a judge.

He was of counsel at Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker and Jackson PC from 2010 to 2012 and a litigation advisor at the Disabilities Rights Education and Defense Fund from 1992 to 1999.¹

As to the environmental lawyers, almost any project of any size is sued by usually several environmental organizations, in all cases they settle for as much money as they can get and move on to blackmail the next project.

¹ http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17861

 

[mark handler]

On the first day of law school they asked us what kind of law we intended to practice, most of us older guys said business law, the young guys were almost unanimous in saying environmental law because that's where the money was going to be, there was one exception, he said he wanted to practice women's civil rights law since that's where the big money was going to be, he went on to bankrupt several businesses including Lucky Stores, Albertsons bought the remains and recently restored the Lucky name. He made a fortune on that one but came out of retirement to pursue his dream, destroying Walmart, he took that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, the court saying it was a state court issue, his firm is now bringing his civil rights issues through the state court systems, state by state. He went on to advise lawyers on disability rights law and has recently been appointed a judge.As to the environmental lawyers, almost any project of any size is sued by usually several environmental organizations, in all cases they settle for as much money as they can get and move on to blackmail the next project.

¹ http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17861

Interesting story but not true

Lucky Stores Never went into bankruptcy. It was acquired by another company

 

[conarb]

I heard they had filed Chapter 11, he did win $107 million from them and it could be that Albertsons bought them out to pay the judgement prior to the actual filing, anyway Lucky couldn't have remained in business and pay the judgment too.

He successfully tried and then settled the third largest sex discrimination class action recovery in history ($107.25 million), (Stender v. Lucky Stores, 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992)) and settled the first major challenge to the use of psychological testing by a private employer, (Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp dba Target Stores). He was co-lead counsel in the then largest Americans with Disabilities Act access settlement, Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, 158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994). He settled the largest disability employment class action ever (Glover v. Potter (EEOC 2004)). He represented one of the principal objectors to the Georgine class action settlement before the third Circuit and the United States Supreme Court, where the standards for assessing settlement classes were handed down. (Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)).¹

¹ https://www.law.berkeley.edu/2459.htm

 

[mark handler]

Lucky Stores History

Lucky began in San Mateo county, just south of San Francisco as Peninsula Stores. Expansion to the East Bay in 1935, resulted in what investor Charles Crouch called his “lucky stores”, and the name was first used at the Berkeley store on Shattuck Avenue in 1935.Lucky was an innovative homegrown answer to Safeway, and stores were clustered primarily in Oakland and other East Bay locations.Lucky was a leader in the transition from small stores to supermarkets, opening a flagship store at East 14th and Juana, San Leandro in 1947, which featured a coffee shop and more. This store operated even under the Albertson’s name until the summer of 2005 when it was finally retired.Lucky grew by acquisition in many markets including Cardinal Stores (Sacramento), Big Bear (Seattle), Jim Dandy and Food Basket (Southern California), Kash and Karry (Florida), and Eagle Country Markets (Illinois). Many chains were operated under their old names for several years after their takeovers.Lucky also operated a chain of department stores called Gemco throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Memco (a Gemco clone on the east coast which was liquidated in 1983), Hancock Fabrics, and Grand Auto Supply at various periods during the 1970s. In reaction to a 1986 hostile takeover bid by Asher Edelman, Gemco and the specialty stores were sold or closed. Most of California’s Gemco stores were sold to Target, giving the discounter ts first foothold in California; many of these stores are still operating as Target branches today.In 1988, American Stores succesfully acquired Lucky in yet another hostile takeover attempt, and the chain became another division of that company, along with*Jewel-Osco*in the midwest,*Acme*in the northeast, Buttrey Stores in the Rockies, and*Alpha Beta, Food Basket, and Sav-on Drugs in Southern California. Eagle was spun off into a separate entity.Upon FTC review, American Stores’ Alpha Beta units in northern California were re-branded as Lucky, while a number of the southern California Alpha Beta branches were sold to Yucaipa and ultimately merged into*Ralphs*when that chain was also acquired by Yucaipa. The Skaggs Alpha Beta name lived on for a time outside California.In 1998, Albertson’s purchased American Stores and became the second largest grocery retailer in the US; all Lucky stores were rebranded the following year.In the Bay Area, Lucky was notable for retaining many of its older urban locations even when other grocers were closing or consolidating. Particularly in Oakland, many smaller stores were fifty years old and still maintained and modernized on a regular basis. Albertsons eventually closed or replaced many of these stores.In January 2006, Albertsons was sold to a group consisting of Supervalu (who bought Jewel, Acme, Shaw’s, and most of the other grocery proprties outside Northern California), CVS (who took most of the standalone Sav-on and Osco drug stores), and Cerberus (who purchased the Northern Caifornia grocery units plus those in the Rocky Mountain states, Texas, and Florida). There was some speculation that Cerberus might return the Lucky name to Northern California. In a way, this is exactly what happened, as Cerberus sold the Northern california units to*Save-Mart, which announced plans in July 2007 to*re-launch the Lucky Stores brand name*in the San Francisco Bay Area.In April 2006, Grocery Outlet, a chain of closeout stores based in California, attached the Lucky name to a remodeled store in Rocklin, and claimed its right to use the name and trademark that Albertsons had abandoned in 1999. Grocery Outlet backed off after Supervalu began opening its own Lucky-branded stores in Southern California and Nevada.Lucky in San Francisco:The company did not enter the San Francisco market until the 1940s. At one point in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were four locations in the city. Two of these (1100 Eddy, closed about 1983 and since demolished, and 100 Lakeshore, since relocated within the same shopping center) were built from the ground up. The branch at 816 Geneva started as a Purity store, assumed the Lucky name in the early 1970s, closed in 1984, and has since been demolished.The final of the four, at 3925 Alemany, started as an Albertson’s in the late 1960s, operated as Lucky from about 1979 to 1999, and then (following the merger) became an Alberston’s again until being demolished and relocated within a rebuilt version of the shopping center and apartment complex in 2001.Two more stores (originally planned by Lucky before the merger) have opened in San Francisco since 2002, one at the site of a former Safeway on Clement Street and one at Fulton and Stanyan on the site of the former Petrini’s Market. Had the Lucky name survived, these stores would have brough the chain back to its historic high of four San Francisco units.

 

[mark handler]

NOTHING TO DO WITH DISABILITY OR ADA OR ANY OTHER ISSUE ON THIS BOARD Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc http://gbdhlegal.com/cases/stender-v-lucky-stores/

Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.*was a class action brought on behalf of women employees of Lucky Stores, Inc.* After a three month trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a lengthy opinion finding that Lucky’s employment practices violated federal and state fair employment laws.* The decision is reported at 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992). The court then conducted hearings to determine an appropriate remedy.* The case subsequently settled for $80 million and a ten year settlement agreement under which Lucky Stores agreed to make significant changes to its personnel practices throughout California to insure equal employment opportunities for all employees and to increase the number of women in management positions.

 

[conarb]

I don't know the inside machinations, but the word was that he had bankrupted them and the name changed on all the stores around here to Albertsons, those stores are now back to being Luckys.

The fact is that he got $107 million, the way these class actions are settled is there are usually about a half dozen named plaintifs as well as all the other affected employees who didn't opt out, the usual terms of settlement is that the named plaintiffs get something like $10,000 to $20,000 each and the rest of the class gets something like $10 to $20 dollars each, the attorneys get the rest. The supposedly harmed plaintiffs are simply pawns exploited by the attorneys, just like disability law. Civil rights law has been a disaster for this country and should entirely be eliminated as soon as possible, it's nothing but a gold mine for attorneys and others who cash in to exploit the law and those supposedly harmed. Here are the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, there were 7 named plaintiffs in this case.

By far my biggest gripe is government agencies who use ADA compliance as an excuse to pass bond issues that give them everything from, new schools to remodeled city halls and parks, in many cases raiding those funds to fund their unfunded employee benefit obligations.

 

[conarb]

NOTHING TO DO WITH DISABILITY OR ADA OR ANY OTHER ISSUE ON THIS BOARD Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc

You are the one constantly posting that ADA is civil rights law, women's rights are civil rights law as well.

 

[mark handler]

You are the one constantly posting that ADA is civil rights law, women's rights are civil rights law as well.

ADA is a civil rights law that has element that relates to the built environment. Woman's rights and employment law as related in your tail, do not. A women suing because she was paid less and was not made a manager has nothing to do with built the environment, this has nothing to do with the site topics..

Just because someone may talk about a garage does not mean we want to hear about the tuning up of a humvee

 

[conarb]

ADA is a civil rights law that has element that relates to the built environment. Woman's rights and employment law as related in your tail [sic], do not. A women suing because she was paid less and was not made a manager has nothing to do with built the environment, this has nothing to do with the site topics..

Well, stop posting about ADA and confine yourself to accessibility issues to the extent that similar statutes are adopted in the building codes. Your original post is about attorney Scott Johnson bringing actions in Federal Court for ADA violations, those actions have nothing to do with the codes as enforced here.

 

[mark handler]

Well, stop posting about ADA and confine yourself to accessibility issues to the extent that similar statutes are adopted in the building codes. Your original post is about attorney Scott Johnson bringing actions in Federal Court for ADA violations, those actions have nothing to do with the codes as enforced here.

And for such an educated man......... that is where you are once again wrong......

 

[conarb]

that is where you are once again wrong......

Mark:

Where am I wrong? Building codes are state code issues, ADA is federal law, I see nothing in your posted article about building codes or state law:

A good number of the targets of Johnson’s 3,000 lawsuits throughout Northern California over the years have been forced out of business from Lake Tahoe to the Bay Area to Sacramento with punitive damages approaching six figures. At least one of the 21 Manteca businesses served with court filing in the San Diego District federal court — Johnson avoids the Sacramento federal district as judges there have reportedly developed a low tolerance for his lawsuits — ¹

¹ http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/107230/

 

[mark handler]

Dick

The ADA is partially an accessibility issue. State law requires compliance with the ADA.

The 2013 California Building Code sections ARE NOW BASED ON THE ADASAD. Federal accessibility guidelines.

The problem is the ADA law is so inclusive that it includes too much. Infringement of rights is ambiguous.

People that are suing in federal court for everything and claiming ADA violation.

California allows for 4, 000 per violation. The fed's do not allow for that.

The federal courts should not allow themselves to be used for that.

But to say the ADA should not be a part of the building code is like Donald Sterling to say he is not a racist.

 

[mark handler]

Dick

From now on every time you see the term ADA replace it with accessible.

People/newspapers have misused the term.

This may help . The business closed because it was not Accessible. Not because of ADA.

Accessible parking; accessible toilet; accessible entrance; accessible features. ...all building code issues/violations. ... not civil rights issues.

 

[ADAguy]

ADA is a dance with two partners, The Feds and the state. The Feds wrote the melody and expect the states to dance to it using the code as the dance steps. You can "Dance with the Stars" or do a simple twostep tp comply.

Attorneys in California being circumvented by CASp revisions are turning to the Feds who will pay them but not the disabled. Johnson is disabled and an attorney so he gets paid no matter what.

As to business owners, ball has been in your court since 91', play with it or (bear the consequences) Why does this continue to be hard to understand?

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Dick This may help . The business closed because it was not Accessible. Not because of ADA.

Not accurate.

The business closed because it" did not meet government mandated accessibility regulations."

It could very well have been accessible.

Brent.